Is Spectrum Value Growing, Flat or Declining?

Is the value of spectrum in the U.S. market flat, increasing or declining? It’s a hard question to answer in the abstract.

It all depends on which frequencies we are looking at, the specific value to potential owners who might buy spectrum, and other issues such as the amount of spectrum, the contiguity of the spectrum and the other alternatives which might be available to provide desired spectrum assets.

It might be fair to say there are big disconnects, in some cases.

Some have estimated the total value of 2.5-GHz spectrum held by Sprint at $115 billion or so. Others might argue that all of Sprint’s spectrum is worth around $60 billion.

It is worth noting both those figures exceed Sprint’s total market valuation of about $28 billion, in the third week of October 2016. Somebody is wrong, by quite a lot.

“We estimate that Sprint is valuing principally 2.5 GHz spectrum at $1.85/MHz/POP, which is more than six times the $0.30/MHz/POP it effectively paid for this spectrum when it acquired Clearwire in 2013,” says BTIG equity analyst Walter Piecyk.

How much is Dish Network spectrum worth? Observers continue to argue about the matter. Analysts at Kerrisdale Capital have argued that demand for Dish Network’s spectrum is wildly optimistic, and that spectrum prices are headed dramatically lower. Others have argued that the spectrum represents most of the equity value of Dish Network as a whole. Some have pegged the mobile spectrum licenses as 80 percent of Dish equity value, based on a valuation of $35 billion to $50 billion for the spectrum licenses. By some estimates, facilities-based U.S. mobile operators, plus Dish Network, own about $368 billion worth of spectrum licenses. AT&T now holds spectrum licenses worth more than $91 billion, estimates Goldman Sachs analyst Brett Feldman, while the value of Verizon’s spectrum is $79.4 billion. In all, AT&T now holds spectrum licenses worth more than $91 billion, estimates Goldman Sachs analyst Brett Feldman. He also estimates the value of Verizon's spectrum at $79.4 billion.The current equity value of all AT&T stock is $176.5 billion, implying that spectrum alone represents 51.6 percent of AT&T’s total equity value. Verizon’s market value is $207.9 billion, implying that Verizon’s spectrum represents 38 percent of total valuation. Bloomberg Intelligence has estimated the total value of Sprint’s 2.5-GHz spectrum alone at $115.1, about 2.4 times Sprint’s enterprise value of $48 billion.In fact, some have argued that T-Mobile US spectrum accounts for more than 100 percent of its total market value.

Sprint apparently values 14 percent of its spectrum holdings at $16.4 billion as part of a recent sale-leaseback of spectrum.

That implies a total valuation of spectrum at about $117 billion, or about four times Sprint’s present market capitalization. Clearly there is a huge variance; some might say a disconnect.

Either Sprint’s spectrum is not worth as much as it claims, or the market is seriously undervaluing Sprint as an asset.

Dish Network has a huge interest in spectrum valuation , as it holds a significant block of mobile spectrum that must either be put to use, or sold, or returned to the government.

“If we valued Dish’s core business at five times the consensus 2016 EBITDA estimate and $1.85 per MHz per POP it would imply a value of $106 per share for Dish and $85 per share if we taxed the gains from a sale of spectrum at that level at 35 percent,” Piecyk argues.

In the third week of October 2016, Dish Network’s equity is selling for about $57 a share. Again, there is a disconnect between implicit spectrum value and equity value of the whole business using--or potentially using--that spectrum.

So the value of mobile spectrum matters especially for a few firms (Dish Network and Sprint, in particular) that are monetizing, or hoping to monetize, those assets.

The specific value of existing spectrum matters less to AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile US, as it is an asset meant only to support the business model, and not being collateralized (Sprint) or potentially monetized (Dish Network).

Popular posts from this blog

You can see where this is going. Younger users text more than they talk, and though today's users 25 and above still talk more than they text, the usage pattern is uniform: younger age cohorts text more than older age cohorts.

So as each age cohort advances, one might predict that texting behavior will grow over time. How much it grows is the only real question.

Users 18 or younger actually"talk" about as much as users 55 to 64. One suspects an awful lot of "voice" activity is of the coordination and collaboration sort, so that younger and mid-life workers might be in work groups that require more coordination than workers 55 to 64.

Industry competitors normally pay money to track their market share versus their "real" competitors. The problem is that, in rapidly-changing and porous new markets, the legacy competitors--even when they are the most benchmarked firms--are not the strategic competitors. These days, many service providers would say that "Google" or other app providers are their key competitors, even as they continue to benchmark against others in their "narrow" markets (mobile market share, or fixed network video or internet access).

The biggest single change in the internet value chain between 2005 and 2010, for example, was the shift of revenue from telcos to Apple, Microsoft and Google. Telecom providers lost 12 percent of profit, while Apple, Microsoft and Google gained 11 percent. source: McKinsey Nevertheless, the strategic issue is diminishing relevance. The "access to the internet" and associated service provider functions simply represent less value in th…

By now, telecom executives are well aware of the “disruption” market strategy, whereby new entrants do not so much try and “take market share” as they attempt to literally destroy existing markets and recreate them. Skype and VoIP provider one example. The “Free” services run by Illiad provide other examples. Most recently, we have seen Reliance Jio disrupting the economics of the mobile market in India, offering free voice in a market where voice drives service provider revenues. “Free” is a difficult price point in most markets. But free voice forever is among the pricing and packaging foundations for Reliance Jio’s fierce attack on India’s mobile market structure. “Free voice” does not only lead to Jio taking market share, but reshapes the market, destroying the foundation of its competitor business models. At the same time, Jio hopes to become the leader in the new market, driven by mobile data, with far-higher usage and subscribership, and vastly-lower prices. source: GSMADisruption…

Gary Kim has been a communications industry analyst, consultant and journalist for more than 35 years. He currently works mostly as a content developer (marketing copy, white papers, applied research, conference and blog content.

He speaks frequently at industry events, has written one book, half a dozen major market studies and 24,000 articles. His work is noted for its examination of business model issues.

He was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.